Begs the question, would a salary cap style system be feasible for cycling? Sky's budget is clearly a contributing factor in to them winning 4 of the last 5 tours.

No it wouldn't be any better. What if the best riders still rode for the best team regardless of money? Some of you lot would still whinge. Then I bet the proposal would be to forcibly break up the team because they are successful.

It's up to the others to try and take the fight to Team Sky. I don't like them either, but the others have to work harder to take the fight to Team Sky. They can't be the top team forever.

Here's Sean Yates explaining why no one can attack on the climbs given the power being produced by Team Sky's domestiques.

VeloNews: Can you explain Sky’s tactics on the climbs?Sean Yates: On the main climbs or the points where it’s crucial, Sky sits at the front and rides a very high tempo. They’re all riding at threshold, and when you’ve got very good guys riding at threshold, about 450w, or in VAM, they’re climbing 1600 or 1700, so to attack, you’ve got to go 1900 for a short period of time, which means you go over your threshold, which means you pay for it.

VN: So everyone is essentially going as fast as they can; what happens when you ‘pay for it?’SY: You can only go over your threshold for 30 seconds or 1 minute, and then you have a big dip in power. So consequently, by the time when you attack, and the time you recover from that attack, you’re going slower. And when you have such a strong team, setting such a high tempo, it’s virtually impossible to attack.

What made it any less exciting than previous tours? Since 1990, can you say in how many tours there's been any excitement in the last week? Le Mond in 1990 taking the jersey from Chiapucci two days from Paris in a time trial (Le Mond didn't even win a single stage that year!), Pantani taking the jersey from the Wunderkind in 1998 on the road to Les Deux Alps (Stage 15, only just in the last week), that connoisseur of fine beer and wine Landis bonking one day then going for a solo testosterone fuelled 120km attack to Morzine the next in 2006? Evans did nothing special in 2011, he only won because he could time trial better than the Schleck's. I don't recall Evans attacking anywhere, all he ever did was follow. No, the tour gets all it's excitement in the first week, maybe into the second. After that it's a race of attrition and always will be.

Why do the Giro and Vuelta appear more exciting, well mostly because the teams are either putting in their B squads to rest their A-Team for the tour (Giro), or using it as a last chance to rescue a poor season (Vuelta). Makes for exciting racing because anyone can win, but you know, nobody talks about Merckx's five Giro wins except in context of the Giro-Tour double, and when we talk about the greats does Alfredo Binda ever get a mention? We can all name every winner of the tour since we first became aware of the race, but can anyone remember (without google) how many Giro's Indurain won, or whether he ever won the Vuelta (yes his "home" race)?

The Tour grips us because it is THE world championship of stage races. Respect the winner because he has beaten the very best, however the race played out. If you want excitement, that's what the Spring Classics are for.

richbee wrote:The Tour grips us because it is THE world championship of stage races. Respect the winner because he has beaten the very best, however the race played out. If you want excitement, that's what the Spring Classics are for.

It didn't grip me - I stopped watching after the first week. It was definitely boring...

Last edited by RonK on Tue Jul 26, 2016 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

RonK wrote:It didn't grip me - I stopped watching after the first week. It was definitely boring...

How about just to make it exciting just for you they introduce a daily handicap? Lead weights added to the bike according to position on GC, what about every second stage is cyclo cross? Would that help? Or here's an idea, why not simply enjoy the contest for what it is, the best cyclists in the world competing for the greatest prize of all.

I didn't find it boring but then I like Froome and see him as clearly the most complete GC tour rider at this point in time.I enjoyed seeing him withstand the abuse and negative sentiment and still come out on top.Sky is clearly the best team with the biggest budget. They are able to set a grueling pace on the climbs that makes it almost impossible to attack from.It just means you've got to attack elsewhere. The one who did that was Froome. He could have sat back and made his time purely on the tt's but he didn't he attacked when it should have been others attackingWell trained, well prepared and well executed.

So the best winning is boring? Then either nobble them as per Obree [handicap, or just cap...so that it becomes "like" a competition, and make 'em all ride the same bikes while we're at it, or take a step backwards with technology and prevent radio communication perhaps, and computers, and support] or bring back the dopers, or just allow them to engage in actual combat to take out their rivals. Interesting to note that the EPL was described the same way when ManUtd were canning it and similarly that had money at its heart too...and the kind of hatred that sports fans are so good at, but that didn't last too long...the dominance that is, the hatred remains as a significant attachment for some.

Don't blame Froome/Sky for being better. In other sports a new manner of playing [total football or riding to the numbers for example] occasionally gains the upper hand for a while, then the competition finds a way of combating that [a new formation or different tactics perhaps] and everything is on its ear again. Or more cynically, the money balance/teams/alliances are not fixed indefinitely. You can wait until it finds your Goldilocks zone, or take what you can from it the way it is.

Sky are doing what they're meant to do and are very successful at it. It's up to the others to come up with a way of countering that, either at their own game or using a different method. If nothing else Sky are predictable. The others know what they're facing before it even starts. That's a powerful tool to have when facing a foe. [eg. If you know your opponent at chess is always going to swap pieces, like an early computer game, you can take advantage of that. Similarly, if you're facing off against someone like Luis Suárez, you could dab on a little dark sauce and have a bet each way. ] That the others haven't been able to exploit that yet ain't Sky's fault.

For mine, if you find it boring, blame those who can't compete rather than those who can...or perhaps expand your vision.

There's so much more going on in a grand tour that I can't help feeling that those who can only be made happy by the "right" person winning the overall comp are missing a hell of a lot. There's a race every day [barring rests], for weeks. Sky/Froome don't win them all, or even try to. There's the sprint and climbing jerseys to fight over. Even if the winner is a foregone conclusion a week or more out, surely there's interest in how your favoured team/riders will progress or what misfortune befalls them? For example, this year Porte was a realistic GC hopeful. An untimely early flat, a fall or two, a crash into a motorcycle ffs, and you're still left wondering if he's able to mount a challenge, and even once that hope is all but gone, there's still a podium place within reach. Or nonspecifically, how can anyone not be impressed by descents in the wet at breakneck speed? I have to remind myself to relax every few minutes. Or back to specifics again, how impressive was it that Sagan can put down so much power that he's spinning his back wheel at close to 70kph at the very last throw!!! [Oh I know it was over a crossing that looked damp but I'm not looking to tear down heroes ]. Or what if Froome had fallen AND injured himself badly in the last couple of days? That's all it would have taken. Would that then have made it exciting again, or kinda sad/comical in a good ol' Steven Bradbury way? Would all those who'd tuned out have come running back in again, or would turning up for the last scene have blown their chance of enjoyment yet again?

Finding such a massive endeavour as the TdF boring is like complaining that life is boring. Sure, it can be if your focus is limited. It's nowhere near if you seek out things that aren't, even what might initially seem like small things. You can sit in a doctor's waiting room moaning about the wait, or pick up a National Geographic and learn about something that you might not have known. At least some of the responsibility for that is yours. Believe it or not, even entertainments like bands or movies or sport do not have you as their specific and sole priority. They might be happy to have you along and even hope you enjoy the ride, but they usually have bigger fish to fry. You can often still find things worth taking away from them though, usually without much effort at all. Or don't. The choice is yours.

Priorities are another kettle of fish altogether. Not everyone gets time to watch as much as others, but that TdF, boring? I find that difficult to relate to. Perhaps I'm just easily impressed.

K2 wrote:Not everyone gets time to watch as much as others, but that TdF, boring? I find that difficult to relate to. Perhaps I'm just easily impressed.

Yes perhaps you are.

I've watched the tour coverage ever since SBS first started broadcasting highlights back in 1991. For year after year I recorded and avidly watched every moment that was broadcast. I just couldn't get enough of it.

This year for the first time ever I stopped watching after the first week.

Just like F1 is boring, so has the tour become boring and when that happens people will simply turn off.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.